ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the Revision Petitioner seeking to call for the records and set aside the Judgment in C.A.No.12 of 2014, dated 06.09.2014, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court in C.C.No.30 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry, dated 14.03.2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Petitioner and the Respondent will be referred to as Accused and Complainant, respectively.

3. It is the case of the complainant that on 22.02.2010, the accused approached her and borrowed a sum of Rs.66,000/- to meet out family expenses. To witness the said borrowal, the accused had issued a post dated cheque/Ex.P1, bearing No.918744, dated 27.05.2010, drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Reddiarpalayam, Pondicherry. After due intimation to the accused, she had presented the cheque for collection on 27.05.2010, through Indian Bank, Mudaliarpet Branch and the cheque had been returned by the banker through a memo/Ex.P2, dated 20.05.2010, with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. The Complainant had informed about the dishonour of cheque to the accused even then she had not come forward to return the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant had issued a notice/Ex.P3, dated 15.06.2010 and the same was received and acknowledged by the accused on 21.06.2010, vide postal acknowledgment card/Ex.P4. The accused had issued a reply notice/Ex.P5, dated 07.07.2010, with false allegations to the complainant. Hence, the complaint. Thereafter, the prosecution initiated proceedings in C.C.No.30 of 2011, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry, for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Trial Court, the accused was questioned under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and she was denied the accusation. The complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. During the cross examination, P.W.1 had sought for the copy of the complaint in C.C.No.389 of 2010 marked it as Ex.D1 and the judgment dated 10.12.2012 in C.C.No.389 of 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry was marked as Ex.D2.

5. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against her and she denied the same.

6. After considering the materials and hearing the arguments on either side, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and passed the Judgment dated 14.03.2014 in C.C.No.30 of 2011 and convicted the accused and sentenced her to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

7. Challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry in C.C.No.30 of 2011, dated 14.03.2014, the accused had filed C.A.No.12 of 2014, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry and the Appellate Court, by the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2014, had dismissed the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.12 of 2014 and confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.30 of 2011. Challenging which, the accused has filed the present Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 (1) r/w 407 Cr.P.C.

8. Heard Mr.Gokulakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Accused and Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the accused and the complainant are known to each other from the year 1998, which was admitted by the complainant in her cross examination. The accused herein approached the complainant and sought for business loan through a private financial institution for doing business. As per the request of the complainant, the accused h